Standing Committee B

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Gambling Bill

Roger Gale: Order. Before we commence this morning's proceedings, I have to report that the Programming Sub-Committee has met and that there will be a half-hour debate on an amendment to the programme order.

Richard Caborn: I beg to move,
 That—
 (1) the order of the Committee made on 8th November, as varied by the order made on 11th November, shall be varied so as to provide for consideration of clause 7 immediately after schedule 4; and
 (2) the resolution shall also be varied so as to provide that the words ''5.30 pm on Tuesday 16th November'' shall be deleted.
 By way of explanation—[Interruption.]

Roger Gale: Order. I am sorry to interrupt proceedings, but it is clear that we are having difficulty getting some strangers into the Gallery. May I ask hon. Members who wish to hear the proceedings but are not members of the Committee to take the seats available to the rear of the Opposition Benches? That should allow sufficient space for those who wish to listen. I am also prepared to allow House of Commons pass holders to use those seats.

Richard Caborn: By way of explanation on the programme resolution, I shall make a short statement. We have taken careful note, as promised, of the concerns raised on Second Reading about the casino proposals in the Bill, particularly the provisions for regional casinos. In the debate, there was a large measure of support for the view that the proposed licensing controls, working alongside the planning system, would not be strong enough to guard against the proliferation of gambling facilities hitherto untested in this country, or against the location of regional casinos in unsuitable areas.
 The Government regard the regional casino framework, which was much strengthened by pre-legislative scrutiny, as robust and comprehensive. However, we are happy to provide additional reassurance to those who prefer a more cautious approach. We have therefore decided to amend the Bill, if possible in Committee, but at the latest on Report, to address concerns without losing the opportunity to broaden consumer choice and add to the regeneration of areas that might benefit from regional casinos. 
 Our analysis has always suggested that the number of regional casinos would increase gradually in the early stages of the new licensing environment because 
 of the safeguards that we are putting in place. As an additional reassurance, we will limit the number of regional casinos in the first phase to eight. They will be able to open after the Bill is brought fully into force, which we expect to be in 2007. 
 Whether more regional casinos will be allowed in due course will depend on the results of careful evaluation of their impact after the initial period. We will expect the independent gambling commission, supported by expert research, to advise on whether the introduction of such casinos has increased the risk of problem gambling. What happens then will depend on the assessment and on judgment about protection of the public from social harm. We will also want to know, with the help of the regional development agencies and regional planning bodies, what regeneration and other economic affects there have been in the areas concerned. 
 Within the tough regulation framework established by the Bill, it will be for the market to decide whether there is a true demand for regional casinos. However, if Parliament agrees that the first phase has provided the expected level of reassurance, more regional casinos will follow. If the Government decide on the basis of the assessment to allow more regional casinos to be established, an order will need to be approved by resolution of both Houses. 
 When tabling amendments, we shall set out in detail our proposed arrangements for determining where regional casinos will be located and how licences to run them will be awarded, any consequential changes relating to other categories of casino to avoid the proliferation of small or large casinos, and other such matters on which a number of views have already been expressed. 
 At this stage we do not propose to rule out any part of Great Britain as a suitable area for one or more of the eight regional casinos that will initially be authorised. We are clear that there should be an overarching national policy statement that brings together the requirements of gambling regulation and the roles of planning and economic regeneration. That will set out the principles that should guide decision making about casinos. We intend to publish a draft of that statement when we table the amendments so that Parliament and the public can fully understand the overall policy context.

Roger Gale: Order. Before we proceed to a short debate on the programme resolution I want to clarify one or two points. Under the Standing Orders of the House the debate will terminate not later than three minutes past 10. I also want the Committee to be clear on two things. First, the resolution effectively means that today's sitting is open-ended and will terminate only with the motion to adjourn moved by the Government Whip. Secondly, while that is literally the case, private indications from the Programming Sub-Committee suggest that it is intended that the Committee will rise at 6 pm. The programme resolution does not say that, and further considerations between the usual channels later in the day could affect that. Should the Committee determine
 that it wishes to sit later than that time I shall suspend the sitting automatically, either for a Division of the House, or for a comfort break for the staff, or both.

John Whittingdale: May I first make it clear that we support the resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee? In response to the Minister's statement, I say to the Committee that making such a fundamental change to the most controversial element of the Bill at this stage in our proceedings is an extraordinary development. It is a humiliating climbdown for the Government. It might not have been necessary had they listened to the concerns that had been expressed for some considerable time by Members from all parties and by outside organisations ranging from all the Churches through to the UK casino industry itself, not to mention a wide spectrum of the media.
 Having said that, we welcome the fact that the Government have now agreed to set a limit on the number of regional casinos and that there will be a pilot scheme subject to assessment after a period. Indeed, what the Minister has announced bears a remarkable similarity to our amendment No. 70 to clause 7, which proposed exactly such a pilot scheme. The only difference is that the Minister has announced that the limit should be eight rather than four. We will wish to explore that when we come to debate clause 7 itself. A number of areas remain of concern to us. We will want to hear more about the location of the casinos and the Government's proposals for assessing their impact. We undoubtedly welcome the nature of the scheme that has been announced this morning but will we wish to examine it in detail. 
 This is a step forward, however, and to facilitate it, the intention of Front-Bench Members—obviously I cannot speak for all my colleagues—is to withdraw our original amendments to clause 7 so that we can have a full debate on clause stand part about the whole regional casinos industry. We will then want to see the exact detail of the amendments that the Government are to table, either during the remainder of the Committee proceedings or on Report. I hope that the fact that we will withdraw our amendments at this stage will allow us to table amendments on Report, should we feel that the Government's changes do not go far enough. 
 Later in our consideration of the Bill, we will press on the Government one or two other measures that will provide additional safeguards that we believe to be necessary. At this stage, I can say that we welcome the Government's last-minute change of mind. 
 I have one further point to make. When we debated the emergency amendment to our programme order last Thursday, to provide for a delay so that the Minister could consult his colleagues before agreeing to these changes, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) specifically asked the Minister 
''for a clear undertaking that any announcement that he makes about major changes to clause 7 . . . will be made first to the Committee and to no other organisation.''
The Minister said in his response that 
''there will be no public statements or announcements before I come to Committee.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 11 November 2004; c. 89-90.] 
It was, therefore, with some surprise this morning that I heard on the radio that the Secretary of State had briefed the parliamentary Labour party last night on the changes that have been announced. The report was not based on a speculative briefing or on sources close to the Secretary of State, but on a statement by the right hon. Lady, on the record, to the parliamentary Labour party rather than to the Committee. That seems to be a breach of the undertaking given to the Committee by the Minister a few days ago. I will be interested to hear his observations on that matter.

Don Foster: I join the hon. Gentleman in saying that we are happy to support the programme resolution and to follow the Conservatives' approach in agreeing to withdraw any of our amendments to clause 7, so that we can have a full debate on the Minister's proposal and also consider those other matters at a later stage.
 I make it clear, however, that two important issues arise from our amendments which I hope the Government will take on board when they table their amendments. First, there is a need for a clearer definition of casinos, not least to enable a definition of the area in which only certain categories of people are to be allowed, and for entry to which identification will be required. Secondly, we would like the opportunity at a later stage to discuss a point mentioned by the Minister in his statement—the location of any new super, or as he calls them, regional casinos. There will no doubt be lengthy debate about the joint scrutiny Committee's proposal that any new super-casino be a destination casino, to avoid the problems of ambient gambling that would occur were those casinos to be sited, for example, on the main streets in major towns and cities. 
 That said, we welcome the brief draft proposals that the Minister has given us in respect of the significant U-turn that the Government are now making on this most controversial clause. We said that we were concerned about the potential for huge proliferation of those untried super-casinos, and about the impact that that might have on public health if there were an increase in problem gambling. We also expressed concern that those casinos might not produce the large regeneration benefits that the Government has claimed for them. I hope, therefore, that there will be an opportunity during the stand part debate on clause 7 to discuss those matters with the Minister in more detail. 
 Many of us find it surprising that there was no reference in the Minister's statement to the number of category A machines. I suspect that Members on both sides of the Committee hope that the Minister will shortly make proposals at least to limit to a small percentage—preferably to zero—the number of category A machines in the eight new trial, or pilot, super-casinos proposed by the Government. 
 I share the anxiety expressed by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) about the fact that the statement was made elsewhere before it was given to the Committee a few minutes ago. The hon. Gentleman said in a previous sitting that he would like the Minister to give us 
''a clear undertaking that any announcement that he makes about major changes to clause 7, or any other part of the Bill, will be made first to the Committee and to no other organisation.'' 
As the hon. Gentleman said, the Minister gave the Committee the following assurance: 
 ''In reply to the hon. Member for Bath, there will be no public statements or announcements before I come to Committee.'' —[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 11 November 2004; c. 89-90.] 
It is clear from what many hon. Members will have heard on the radio and read in our newspapers this morning that an announcement was made last night to a body of people other than members of the Committee. Although I do not question the Minister's integrity, I am deeply concerned that someone from his Department—namely the Secretary of State, who I am sure was well aware of the assurance that the Minister gave the Committee—nevertheless was prepared to break that clear undertaking.

Roger Gale: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, as it is inappropriate for any hon. Member to criticise another in his or her absence without giving notice of the intention to do so. The Secretary of State is not a member of the Committee and could not be present this morning. I therefore advise the hon. Gentleman that if having heard what the Minister says in response he or any other member of the Committee is still dissatisfied, the matter could, and should, properly be raised with the Speaker on the Floor of the House.

Don Foster: I am most grateful for your advice, Mr. Gale, which I, and no doubt other members of the Committee, will follow. In fairness, it is right and proper, as you suggest, that we should first hear the response to our concerns from the Minister, whose integrity I do not call into question.
 I hope that we will have the opportunity to debate the Minister's statement in our discussions on clause stand part. I repeat that we support the programme motion.

Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford and the hon. Member for Bath have been moderate in their comments about the flagrant breach of the undertaking given to the Committee. If it were the only occasion on which such news management had taken place, we might be less concerned. However—

Roger Gale: Order. I thought I had made plain my view on the matter. The hon. Gentleman must not try my patience. There will be an opportunity for him to seek to catch the Speaker's eye on the Floor of the House if he chooses to do so. Will hon. Members please confine their remarks to the programme motion?

Nick Hawkins: Thank you, Mr. Gale. I accept your advice.
 An opportunity arises from the Government's U-turn, going back to what was originally envisaged: that any new casino development should provide an opportunity for regeneration, especially in run-down seaside resorts. I hope that when the Minister responds to this debate, and to the debate on clause stand part, he will expand on the Government's dramatic change of policy and reassure the Committee that as part and parcel of the detailed changes there will be a return to the view strongly expressed by members of the scrutiny Committee so ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). That view was that run-down seaside resorts could benefit if the casino development profits could be used for the regeneration of those areas. 
 It would provide quite a lot of reassurance to those who have been so concerned about the risk of the proliferation of large casinos if it were made clear at this 11th hour that the Government had gone back to what was originally put forward by the pioneers of the concept about 10 years ago as a reason for such large casino developments. They made it clear that such casinos had successfully regenerated many previously run-down resorts in the United States. If we can get back to that, a lot of the public concern will be allayed. 
 Even with the limited number of casinos now being planned, my concern is that if all of them end up in major inland towns and cities, we will lose all those regeneration benefits that are so earnestly desired in places such as Blackpool. I had the opportunity of being briefed by the council's chief executive and one of its senior officers yesterday, as, I believe, did other members of the Committee. I hope that the Minister will be able to go a little further than his announcement of a dramatic reduction in numbers and go back to the original concept of regeneration as the pioneers saw it.

Richard Page: I welcome the principle behind the Minister's statement and I am delighted that the Government seem finally to have recognised the advice advanced by the scrutiny Committee several months ago. This is a classic case of legislating in haste, and I am worried that we will repent at leisure.

Don Foster: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman; I know that the debate is short. I was slightly concerned when he suggested that the Minister's statement indicates that the Government are now following the recommendations of the scrutiny Committee. Does he acknowledge that many aspects of what the Joint Committee said—on category A machines and the need for super-casinos to be destination casinos, for example—were not included in the Minister's statement, as far as it went?

Richard Page: It is very kind of the hon. Gentleman to point that out to me, because that was to be the last point in my short contribution to the debate on the programme motion. Nevertheless, I am glad to be reminded to say what I was going to say.
 The Bill shows all the hallmarks of legislating in haste. It is good that we have decided—I support my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford in advancing the idea—not to move the amendments and then, in view of the Government's appalling mishandling of the matter, to seek extra time on Report to debate clause 7 as it should have been debated in this Committee. I want a commitment from the Government to that effect. 
 In his brief statement on the programme motion, the Minister mentioned eight casinos for Great Britain, which obviously includes Scotland. I would be delighted to know whether he has reached an agreement with the Scotland Office on having casinos in Scotland, what percentage of the eight will be up there, whether the Scottish Executive will have to produce legislation to match our legislation, and whether our legislation will override any Scottish legislation. The Government, in rushing the decision, are getting themselves into a huge and serious hole. I sincerely hope that they do a little more thinking and planning before they proceed any further.

Julie Kirkbride: I concur with the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hertfordshire—

Richard Page: South-West Hertforshire, at the moment.

Julie Kirkbride: My geography has never been the greatest.
 I give a cautious welcome to what the Government have said today, because at least the announcement is going in the right direction. Nevertheless, it raises more questions than have presently been answered, so we look forward to hearing answers from the Minister today. As has been mentioned, the Government have had not just months but years to consider the legislation, starting with the Budd committee a long time ago. A few weeks ago, they were all set to give the green light to 40 casinos throughout the country. It came as no surprise to me or to my hon. Friends when that caused great alarm in the House and among many organisations throughout the UK. Indeed, it surprised me that the Minister was surprised to get such a reception. 
 It was the considered opinion of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for a long time that the market, plus the so-called triple lock, would be sufficient to ensure the distribution of casinos across the country. All of a sudden, following the great furore that was unleashed in the House, the Minister has begun to talk—welcome as it is—about limiting the number of casinos. He has mentioned a figure of eight, and there are many questions to be asked about those eight: where are they going to be, how they will be distributed between the four countries of the United Kingdom, and why eight and not nine or seven or 12 or four or one? 
 A great deal of questions must be asked, not least because an answer that I received from the Minister's Department a few days ago said that putting a limit on the number of casinos would be against European 
 competition rules. So one wonders how the Government have suddenly been able to cobble together a proposal that does what many of us were asking for on Second Reading. I hope that the Minister will have some good answers to that question. 
 I welcome the Government's considerable climbdown, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford described it. I am not sure that the climbdown is yet sufficient to reassure me that there will not be problem gambling in the UK, but so far, so good. We look forward to the Minister giving us more details on the overarching policy that has been cobbled together this morning and announced to the Committee in the most unsatisfactory way.

Richard Caborn: The Opposition say that we have made a humiliating climbdown and a U-turn, but the Secretary of State made it clear that we would consult. Let us be clear: we are talking about a Bill, which we hope to get on to the statute book, that is being introduced to protect people. We have said that consistently. That is why the Budd review was set up, ''A Safe Bet for Success'' was introduced and the wider discussion and consultation has taken place. That has led to about 90 per cent. of the Bill, which is going through satisfactorily.
 We are dealing with the part of the Bill on casinos. As I said in the statement, we thought that the triple lock that we proposed would be a gradual approach to the rolling out of regional casinos. Clearly, there was concern about that, and any responsible Government respond to concerns. The Secretary of State made it clear in the House and in public that she would take those concerns very seriously. If the Opposition believe that to be a U-turn or a climbdown, so be it, but they are being disingenuous. I think that the general public will say that it is good government, that the Government listen to people and they reflect such views in legislation. [Laughter.] One can laugh, and I have no doubt that Opposition Members will continue their barracking. 
 Regarding the Secretary of State, I told the Committee that there would be no public statement. The statement made in private to the parliamentary Labour party last night did not contain numbers. There are Members here who were at that meeting and heard the Secretary of State, who was giving a report on the activity of the Department for the year, and the development of the five-year strategy. Part of that report concerned gambling. She said that we had been listening and that I would be making a statement this morning. She made that statement in general, and never made any reference to numbers at the parliamentary Labour party meeting.

John Whittingdale: The Minister lays great stress on the fact that the Secretary of State gave no indication of the number. Will he therefore explain why the ''Today'' programme was precise, and correct, about the number? Was it a piece of mind reading or a lucky guess by the journalist?

Richard Caborn: I remind the hon. Gentleman that throughout the wide consultation I have taken people into my confidence and that of the Government to try to resolve the issue. I am sure that he will acknowledge that I have tried to include the Opposition parties in that. I do not lay any blame on anyone here, but, the day after my discussions with Opposition parties, it appeared that there had been a humiliating climbdown by the Government and a figure was mentioned. That may well have come from the same people who put it in today's papers—I do not know. Wide discussion has taken place to try to develop a consensus, and information appeared in the newspapers the day after my private consultation with the official Opposition. I am not blaming the official Opposition, but that is what happened.

John Whittingdale: That is extraordinary. Is the Minister suggesting that we made the policy and leaked it? He has announced this morning that there will be eight casinos. I had not heard that number until I heard it on ''Today'' this morning, and the suggestion that we might have somehow briefed the radio programme about what the Government would do is palpably absurd. Somebody who was a part of that decision briefed the media so that they were able to report it this morning, and I can tell the Minister that it was not us.

Richard Caborn: If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, he will find that I said that when there is wide consultation there is always the possibility of people putting information into the public domain. I am explaining first what happened last night and, secondly, that on a number of occasions after my wider consultations with many people to try to ensure that we returned to the House with a consensus, information appeared in the press the following day. The Secretary of State made a statement to a private meeting of the parliamentary Labour party last night. She did not mention figures. Where eight comes from, I do not know, but it has obviously found its way into the public domain. I also do not know how it appeared in the press after my private discussions with the official Opposition.

Bob Russell: Can we move on from who said what and when? The Minister says that the Government are listening and that the number arrived at is eight—
 It being half an hour after the commencement of the proceedings on the motion, The Chairman put the Question, pursuant to Sessional Order C relating to Programming of Bills. 
 Question accordingly agreed to.

Roger Gale: Order. It has been indicated that matters may be raised on the Floor of the House. Mr. Speaker has made it plain that he deprecates statements being made outside the Chamber before they have been made to the Chamber. He has also made it plain that he deprecates attacks on Members on the Floor of the House without notice being given to the Member concerned that such an attack is
 intended. Could I therefore caution any Member who seeks to raise those issues on a point of order later in the day that they should observe the normal courtesies, and inform Mr. Speaker and any Member to whom they wish to refer of their intention?
 We turn to clause 7. It has been indicated that various amendments to the clause are to be withdrawn. Amendments now appear on the selection list and cannot be withdrawn; they can be, however, not moved. As I call the amendments in any right hon. or hon. Member's name, if they are not to be moved, the Member should state, ''Not moved''.

Clause 7 - Casino

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Richard Caborn: I have given the reasons why we reflected on the consultation on clause 7, and I repeat that my statement this morning was made in good faith. Even though, as you rightly say, Mr. Gale, there will be reference to the House, I want to put on record the fact that the Secretary of State's integrity has been upheld by the Committee's proceedings. I have reported back to the Committee this morning, as I said I would.
 Some hon. Members indicated that they thought my statement cobbled together, and some said that it was made in haste, but I assure the Committee that the consultation has been wide. We have come to the decision to add another lock, capping the number of casinos at eight. We believe that, as the desire for that principle was clearly expressed on Second Reading, we should follow it through. However, as members of the Committee have said, a number of consequences flow from that. That is why I said in my statement that I believe it is important to consider the context as we bring forward new clauses. There are still a lot of questions to which answers are being found, in discussions in the Department and after wider consultation with the industry. 
 We are consulting, and shall continue to consult, on how regional casinos in Scotland and Wales will be affected. As I said in my statement, there will be potential consequences, which we have not worked through yet, for large and small casinos. We shall come back with a statement and considered amendments. I do not believe that it would be right this morning to go into all that detail, because we would be accused of cobbling proposals together. This is an important issue, which should be considered in detail, and we shall come back with a considered statement and considered amendments to deliver what I set out in principle to the Committee this morning.

Roger Gale: Order. Before we proceed, I should like to place on record something that I intended to say before I called the Minister. Clearly, there has been some discussion this morning, as a result of which all the amendments to clause 7 were not moved. It is not in my gift to determine which amendments, if any, will be selected for consideration on Report, but I propose
 to make it absolutely plain to the Chairman of Ways and Means that, given the procedure that has taken place this morning, any amendments to clause 7 tabled on Report should be treated with a very open mind.

John Whittingdale: Thank you, Mr. Gale, for that very helpful comment.
 This is a slightly curious debate, because we are now debating clause stand part in the knowledge that the clause will certainly not survive in its present form when the Bill is enacted. We have heard the Minister's statement about the Government's intentions, but inevitably, it was a little sketchy. We shall want to return to those issues as soon as the Government table detailed amendments. However, even though they indicated their acceptance of the concerns that have been expressed, and their proposals about how best to meet those concerns, it is perhaps worth at this stage setting out why we have those concerns, and why we concluded that a pilot scheme is necessary. 
 The history of casino regulation in this country has been one of caution, and that is entirely correct. The Gaming Act 1968 was brought in to deal with a number of concerns about the way in which casinos operate, and since then, the UK casino industry has operated in a responsible manner, without many problems of criminal activity or a significant problem of gambling addiction. We are keen to preserve that. 
 Over the years, there has been liberalisation; for example, the last Conservative Government gradually lifted some restrictions, such as reducing the delay in membership from 48 to 24 hours and allowing the use of debit cards. We support further liberalisation and, as I said on Second Reading, we accept that there is probably no longer a need for the 24-hour delay and that there is a case for allowing advertising. Those are liberalisation measures that would apply to the existing industry. 
 The development of regional casinos or, as we prefer them to be called, destination casinos, is an entirely novel concept—a leap in the dark. Regional casinos are a concept unlike anything that exists in the UK. Over the past few weeks, my colleagues and I have spoken to a number of the operators of huge international casinos that are anxious to establish similar facilities in the UK. To take one example, Caesars Wembley sent an attractive brochure setting out its proposals for a vast enterprise. It says: 
 ''It will be a 'stand-alone' resort with 1,250 slot machines and 110 gaming tables, complemented by a luxury 400-room hotel, spa, shops, restaurants . . . in all occupying 13 acres of . . . development.'' 
One can see the attraction for the Government of the prospect of hundreds of millions of pounds coming into many cities across the country. People have asked what on earth the Government think they are doing, but it is simply that. I accept that such regenerative benefits offer real advantages. However, we should not throw open the door. 
 These enterprises represent hundreds of millions of pounds. One operator that we spoke to yesterday was talking about up to 20 facilities, which calls into 
 question the Government's estimate of 20 to 40 casinos in total. Each facility would have been of the value of about £100 million, which would make £2 billion of investment by just one operator. If operators invest that amount, they will obviously expect a return. They would not be doing it unless they were convinced that there would be a demand for casino gambling unlike anything before in this country. 
 There would be a gigantic leap in the number of people gambling on slot machines in casinos. In itself, that may not be a problem, but the truth is that we do not know. That is why we have always felt it sensible to proceed cautiously and assess the impact before moving forward. We can examine the experiences of other countries in which there has been liberalisation. 
 It has been said that the Government's first sign of cold feet—or perhaps I should say concern—stemmed from a visit by the Minister to Australia. What took place in Australia is not what the Government propose. The massive proliferation, particularly of category A machines, not just in casinos, but in bars and clubs across the country, has undoubtedly been the major cause of the massive increase in problem gambling. It is estimated that 2.5 per cent. of the Australian population have gambling problems. There was an enormous increase in gambling, not just in casinos, but across the country, with millions of dollars being spent. Australia is a warning that we should heed. Equally, Atlantic City is a warning of what can happen if there is a proliferation of casinos. 
 When the Secretary of State first talked about the Bill she said that the Government would have failed if there was an increase in problem gambling and she indicated her confidence that that would not be the case. However, I do not think that any outside observer believes that there will be no increase in problem gambling. If there is a huge increase in the number of people participating in gambling—that must be the case for companies to stand any chance of making returns on their investments—problem gambling will inevitably increase also. 
 Given the independent studies into the issue that have been conducted and the estimates that have been made, it is not possible for the Secretary of State to say that there will be no increase. For instance, the Henley Centre has said: 
 ''The impact of the proposed Bill is expected to increase'' 
the number of problem gamblers 
''by a further 200,000 . . . due to the growth in the number of casinos and the introduction of unlimited stakes and prizes machines.'' 
However, in the regulatory impact assessment the Government have sought to cast doubt on the Henley Centre's analysis. They say that there are serious doubts about how the analysis has been conducted and that 
''the methodology employed . . . cannot adequately model the radical change in market conditions that the Gambling Bill will allow.'' 
That may be correct and it may not be. 
 At the same time, however, NERA Economic Consulting has produced a similar study that says:
 ''Under a scenario of 60 regional casinos . . . we estimate that there could be up to 500,000 casino-related problem gamblers in 2010, approximately 400,000 more than at present.'' 
Of course, that might be wrong as well. Also, the Royal College of Psychiatrists has said: 
 ''The Government's assertion that, while expanding the gambling market in the manner proposed, it will be possible to control the inevitable large increase in excessive gambling, is naive and totally unjustified. It is also inconsistent with the experience in other countries where gambling has been deregulated.'' 
Perhaps all those bodies are completely wrong and the Government are right. Perhaps we can experience a huge increase in gambling in this country without any significant increase in gambling addiction. However, in looking at the two sides of the argument and deciding which one I am more likely to believe, I find that the combined evidence of the Henley Centre, NERA, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and many other outside observers weighs more than the assurances of the Secretary of State that there will be no increase. That is why we suggest proceeding cautiously, with a limited number of casinos and an assessment of their impact. We obviously welcome the fact that the Government have finally accepted that argument.

Bob Russell: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten us on what that limited number would be?

John Whittingdale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as that was exactly the point I was about to come to.

Don Foster: We could have predicted that.

John Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman is just as telepathic as the ''Today'' programme was this morning.

Richard Caborn: The figure is in the relevant amendment.

John Whittingdale: Indeed.
 Before I move on, however, I should say that earlier the Minister made much of the Government being a listening Government. Obviously we welcome it when the Government listen, but what has happened is somewhat like a deaf man who suddenly, at the 11th hour, discovers that he can hear. It is a matter for huge celebration that the man can suddenly hear, but it is a pity that he could not hear earlier. 
 We welcome the Government's concession of a pilot scheme. In answer to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), we tabled an amendment that suggested four. The Government have returned to the matter and suggested eight. We shall want to look at the detail of that proposal before deciding whether we can support the figure of eight.

Clive Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how he arrived at the figure of four? Will he also enlighten us on whether his party intends to table an amendment to determine where those four should be located?

John Whittingdale: We tabled an amendment proposing four because we wanted a pilot scheme. At that stage there was no proposal for a pilot scheme; the
 Government were resting on their belief that there would be about 20 to 40 super-casinos, although there was no provision in the Bill to limit them to that number. We felt that there should be a pilot scheme and we proposed four. We were not absolutely wedded to that number; we were eager to debate whether there should be four, six, two or eight, as we shall in due course. We will be interested to hear why the Government decided on eight and where they propose to locate them. We have our own ideas, but the Government will have to introduce such proposals.

Clive Efford: The answer to the first part of my question is that the hon. Gentleman plucked the figure out of the air and that he has no idea how to determine where the four, or eight, should be.

John Whittingdale: We will see how the Government determine their figure of eight and whether it is the result of careful and rigorous analysis or has been plucked out of the air. We can have a debate about the number; four is preferable to eight, because if we start with four and there are no problems, the number can be increased to eight or more. However, if there are eight, and the assessment reveals significant problems, one cannot then go back to four. If a pilot scheme allows some casinos to be established, we could not say after five years that their licences might be withdrawn. That is why caution is the most important principle and why it is sensible to start with a small number and increase it, rather than going for a higher figure initially. We will debate the matter when we have the Government's detailed proposals.
 The hon. Member for Bath is absolutely right that location is equally important. The original proposals led to discussion of a huge number of schemes, many in the heart of cities. We know from expert evidence on the matter that many feel that the greatest driver of an increase in problem gambling is the location of casinos in high streets, close to where people live. It is the possibility of ambient gambling that is most likely to lead to addiction. That is why casinos should be outside towns and cities. 
 Many accept the concept that appropriate locations are resorts and tourist areas that people make a conscious effort to visit because they want to spend an evening taking part in all the activities that the casino has to offer, including gambling. I am sure that the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) welcomes the fact that we agree that Blackpool would be an attractive option for one of the first casinos. It is ironic that although people have focused on Blackpool, if the original Bill had been introduced, and a large number of casinos had been developed, there would have been a much greater possibility that any casino development in the north-west would have been located close to the heart of the population centres of Manchester and Liverpool. It is likely that Blackpool would not have got a casino if that option had been available. By limiting the number we may have increased the possibility that Blackpool will benefit. We are not completely opposed to any 
 casino development, as there are great advantages to be had. However, we want to know the details of the Government's proposals. 
 We would like an answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) about the legality of the Government's proposals. We originally proposed a pilot scheme, but there was speculation that a cap on the number might be in breach of European law. Indeed, I have received a communication from one legal adviser who responded to our suggestion by saying that it would be likely to be struck down under articles 43 and 49 of the European Community treaty. I am sure that the Minister had considered the legality of what is proposed before making his announcement this morning, and has an answer to that point; it would be of benefit to the Committee to hear it.

Joan Humble: I start by welcoming my right hon. Friend's announcement about the limit on the number of casinos to eight, but I want to talk about location rather than just numbers.
 I am saddened that the debate has concentrated on numbers, because the number of casinos in itself is not the issue. We could have three, four or five in a particular location, serving the function of regenerating a town or city, but the same number spread out nationally, so that everyone in the community was within half an hour's drive of a casino, would limit regeneration potential. I will explore the issue of location rather than numbers, but I must begin by welcoming the Government's announcement that they are being cautious. 
 In limiting the numbers, the Government have recognised the need for caution, which was recommended by Sir Alan Budd in his report. He talked about resort casinos—they were called resort casinos then, but they seem to have changed their name in each year of the past three that we have debated the issue. In paragraph 24.30 of the report, Sir Alan stated: 
 ''Our proposed changes would permit them'' 
—resort casinos. 
''The development of a resort casino or resort casinos in a particular location would depend on local authority planning decisions and on the commercial judgment of businesses that wished to provide them.'' 
That is a perfectly acceptable starting point, and indeed it was the Government's starting point, but Sir Alan Budd and his colleagues emphasised that we need to proceed cautiously. Paragraph 3.29 states: 
 ''Since we are uncertain about the effects on individuals and on society as a whole of changes in regulation we suggest fairly cautious moves in the first place, with scope for further deregulation in due course if the results are acceptable.'' 
I am pleased to say that that is the situation we are now in. 
 It is wise to consider the impact of a new system of operating casinos. We have had casinos for many years, but not on the scale we are now talking about, and they do not offer what large regional casinos will 
 offer. Blackpool has three casinos, and I have been into one of them. I did not gamble, because I am not a member—they are members' clubs. We are talking about something on a much bigger scale, offering entertainment and a whole range of other facilities, so we need to move cautiously. 
 I make no apologies for referring to Blackpool because everyone else keeps doing so. I welcome many of the comments that Members of all parties have made about my constituency and my town. Blackpool has led on the debate for many years, and has been actively involved in promoting the idea of regeneration through casino development and in reinvigorating the tourism product through casinos and changes in gambling legislation. The Minister's announcement has allayed many of our fears about the possibility of gaming sheds appearing outside our towns and the proliferation of gambling. He has quite rightly focused on a limited number so that the Government can address the issue of regeneration. 
 When representatives of Blackpool borough council met members of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee in December 2002, they emphasised that 
''these new casinos are harnessed for regional and urban economic development through investment in projects which generate local community benefits in areas of greatest need.'' 
Again, we need to emphasise that location is important. How are we going to determine those areas of greatest need? 
 I am pleased that the Minister has announced that there is to be a national framework. I argued for that on Second Reading, because there must be clarity in the decision-making process. A detailed and precise national framework is vital. Within that new regulatory system, we need to ensure that we secure genuine regeneration as opposed to simply development benefits. That will guard against proliferation and help to guard against an increase in problem gambling. 
 I see this debate as an opportunity to lobby the Minister while he is considering developing the details of the proposals that we will come to later. I personally favour tourism-based regeneration in relation to casino developments, so that there is the potential to grow the net revenue, rather than simply to displace and recirculate local spending. That is why a destination casino is so important. The fear is that, if casinos are placed in our major cities, the money in that locality will merely be recirculated; the population base and the money is already there. If people choose to go to a particular destination, however, they put new money into that economy, which will enhance regeneration opportunities.

John Pugh: Does the hon. Lady accept that some of the research indicates that money going into gambling, albeit for regeneration, comes from other leisure sectors, often in the same area? Research shows that money spent on gambling is money not spent on other leisure pursuits.

Joan Humble: I disagree. When visitors go to a particular area, they budget for what they are going to spend, but if there is a new opportunity for casino gambling in that leisure destination, they will take that into account alongside how much money they will be spending on restaurants, family amusement arcades—talking about Blackpool—and other things.
 Since the hon. Gentleman's constituency is not too far away from Blackpool, I am sure that he will have seen the excellent report by Pion Economics, which was commissioned by the regional development agency and the Lancashire West partnership on behalf of the eight local authorities in west Lancashire. The report gives a detailed assessment and expresses a view about how much extra money will come into west Lancashire, how many extra jobs will be created and the potential for improving the skills base of the local people. That is an area that has not been mentioned, but Blackpool and the Fylde college—my excellent local college—is already considering putting on extra courses and improving the skills base of the local economy. 
Bob Russell rose—

John Pugh: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Joan Humble: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I will consider giving way to the hon. Member for Colchester.

John Pugh: There is a duty to see what is going on at the college and what preparations it is making, but does the hon. Lady accept that the Pion report is to some extent speculative? We are talking about something completely new and unique in the United Kingdom, so those figures cannot be as firm as they appear. Anxieties have been expressed by some business interests in Blackpool that they will lose out—perhaps in the case of restaurants that are not incorporated in the casino complexes.

Joan Humble: The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about speculation. We are all speculating, which is why I applaud the Government's cautious approach. Nevertheless, the report was produced in consultation with the eight local authorities and local business, and it had a lot of support.
 Most of the figures are based on the best guesses that anyone could have made in the circumstances. The key factor is that circumstances have changed; we are now talking about limiting the numbers and looking at where the new regional casinos will be. We must then ensure that they are focused on the areas of greatest need; without a shadow of doubt, one area of need is our resorts. 
 ''Tomorrow's Tourism Today'' is an excellent document, and the Government are to be applauded for recognising the situation in our seaside towns. Their plight had never before been recognised. The report demanded that resorts be visionary and that they should reinvent themselves. They now have the opportunity to do so. 
 When considering detailed proposals for the location of the eight casinos, I hope that the Minister will take account of the fact that their location needs to be considered in the context of detailed regeneration plans. I say again that Blackpool is unique. It has developed a master plan over five years, and casinos are an integral part of that. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at the possibilities of regeneration. I hope also that he will remember that casinos should form part of the local tourism strategy, which is another of his departmental responsibilities. The two should be linked. I emphasise again that location is important. The number of casinos not a problem; the danger is in putting them in locations that might not benefit. 
 The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford regaled us with stories of American developers. Blackpool has local developers who want to help to regenerate the town through the new regional casinos. Leisure Parcs, which owns Blackpool tower, the Winter Gardens, the three piers and many other properties in the town, is run by a Lancashire business man and is leading in the development of the area. Hilton Hotels, which has a hotel in Blackpool, is also interested. 
 It is not only American international money makers who want to make money from regional casinos. Blackpool has a home-grown product, and we want to see it developed. I am aware that eight of the 34 proposals already made for regional casinos are in the north-west. I am looking over my shoulder, Mr. Gale, but my colleagues from Greater Manchester are fortunately not sitting behind me. It will be a real problem for the Government to decide how to allocate regional casinos. With its eight proposals, the north-west has even more than Greater London, which has five. 
 The regeneration potential has been recognised by many local authorities. I am glad that I will not have to decide where to locate those eight regional casinos. My colleagues in various parts of the country all have areas of deprivation in their constituencies that would benefit from the proposal. It will not be an easy decision. 
 I would not deny other areas the opportunity for regeneration through regional casinos, but as one of the Blackpool MPs I have to argue the case for the town. And as one of the seaside MPs, I must argue that our seaside towns need to regenerate the tourism product that they have successfully offered for many years. Now, in the 21st century, the product needs to be reassessed.

Don Foster: This is clearly a significant U-turn, but the Minister seeks to dress it up by saying that the Secretary of State had committed herself to consultation. Most Members of this House, let alone most members of the Committee, assume that the usual procedure is that consultation takes place before the Government publish legislation. On this occasion, there was a great deal of consultation before the Bill was published. We had the Budd report, the various meetings of other bodies and more recently not one, but two, reports of the Joint Committee. Sadly, it is
 clear that the Government were not in listening mode for much of that time. At least, if they were listening, they were not listening very carefully.
 The Government's introduction of a cap on the number of regional casinos is a major U-turn. After all, only at the end of last month when talking about the new super-casinos in his monthly press conference, the Prime Minister said quite clearly that the market will create between 20 and 40. It was quite clear that he believed that the best way forward was to allow the market to decide. It was reference to market prediction of the number of new super-casinos that led the Secretary of State to tell the House on Second Reading that between 20 and 40 were anticipated. 
 Clearly, the Government had not been listening, particularly to the Joint Committee, which says in paragraph 20 on page 9 of its report: 
 ''It cannot therefore simply be left to the market, as Ministers have suggested.''

Clive Efford: Does the hon. Gentleman recall saying on Second Reading that he would prefer two super-casinos per region? If he does, how would he determine where they would go?

Don Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of what I said, which was that if the Government were seeking to reduce the number of super-casinos, they could, for example, consider one or two per region. As he will see if he studies what I said during that debate, that was if there was to be a limit. My preference was for there not to be an expansion of this new type of casino or an unlimited number of highly addictive category A machines. That is on the record. Many of us look forward to a debate on where the super-casinos are to go when we hear more from the Minister, but I shall return to that point in a second.
 My point is that it is a bit late for the Government suddenly to say that this is not a climbdown or a U-turn but evidence of a listening Government, when we would expect them to listen to the expression of clear views much earlier. Rather than predicting what the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) might be about to say, may I say that I entirely agree with his request for the Minister to give us a very clear assurance that adequate time will be provided on Report to enable us to consider the proposals that are to be advanced then, if not before, by the Government? After all, the Minister has said little of substance about the proposals; indeed, the mystical number of eight is all that we really know. No details have been given on why the figure is eight, on where those eight will be located, on what the procedure for locating those eight will be, or on what controls will be placed on them and on other large and small casinos that may well proliferate as a result. There is very little detail other than that magical number of eight. 
 I do not want to trespass on your advice to me earlier, Mr. Gale, about who said what to whom, but it is very clear from today's press reporting that 
 members of the Labour party knew last night of the figure of eight. I entirely accept the Minister's statement that they were not given that figure in the parliamentary party meeting, but at least some members of the Labour party have been briefed about what the figure was. At no stage in any discussions that I have had with the Minister or anyone else has that figure of eight been mentioned. 
 We need time to discuss in detail the proposals that the Minister will bring forward in due course. After all, we have cause for concern that the Government do not know a great deal about these issues. I referred on Second Reading to the Government's confusion about even the number of existing casinos. The Prime Minister told us it was 120. Lord McIntosh initially said that it was 126. We were subsequently told that he changed his mind and that it was 130, yet according to the parliamentary answer that the Minister gave on 9 November at column 600W it is 134. 
 We cannot even be clear how many casinos there are at present in this country. It is therefore not surprising that we have concerns about the Government's views and understanding of these issues. Indeed, the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford referred to that classic statement by the Secretary of State to the Joint Committee: 
 ''If the legislation gave rise to an increase in problem gambling then it would have failed and it would be bad legislation'' 
Many members of the Committee are deeply concerned that any expansion of casino operations could lead to an increase in problem gambling. Again we want to have the opportunity to explore those points in detail. That is why we urge that we have plenty of opportunity to discuss it on Report. 
 I should like to raise some other issues relating to clause 7. First, I remind the Committee that Lord McIntosh told the Joint Committee at question 47: 
 ''I see gambling reform, which would be introduced by the Gambling Bill, as having three aspects: one is regulation, and that is clearly what the Bill is about, and that is most of what you have been covering; the second is the tax regime; and the third is the location regime. You will not fully understand the gambling reform unless you have all those three legs of the stool in place.'' 
I have mentioned the tax regime before and its importance in our understanding of where this may lead. In its evidence to the Joint Committee, the British Casino Association said that the viability of any new casino cannot be assessed 
''until the future tax and duty regime has been resolved.'' 
We clearly need information about any future tax plans. I hope that that will be covered by the Government's amendments. When the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and I asked the Chancellor about the tax regime, we got this brief reply: 
 ''The Chancellor keeps all taxation under review.''—[Official Report, 11 November 2004; Vol. 426, c. 801W.] 
Well of course he does, but given that this is such an important part of our understanding of the impact of the Government's amendments, I hope that we will get something clearer. I am therefore grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House, who gave the following clear statement:
 ''On the gambling tax, I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman— 
my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)— 
''is making—as the House will know, the Standing Committee is currently considering the Bill, and Members have requested information. I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is aware of the point that has just been made.''—[Official Report, 11 November 2004; Vol. 426, c. 929.] 
I hope that the Minister, too, will confirm that the Committee needs information about the issue of tax and that he intends to produce it. 
 On the issue of location—the third leg—we again have no detail from the Minister. He will be well aware that, as the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood rightly said, there is great concern about where these new casinos will be located. We know that the Government were keen to see them almost anywhere, because they rejected the Joint Committee's very strong advice that they should be leisure destination casinos. We have, indeed, tabled an amendment today—it has not been moved—to propose that that should be the name, with all the implications that will flow from that for the new casinos. As yet, however, the Minister has not told us the Government's thinking on the issue. 
 We know that the Joint Committee believes that it is vital that these new super-casinos are not located on high streets, with the problems of ambient, ''walk in and play'' gambling that can arise. It is important for the Minister to be aware that, although many of these new super-casinos are likely to be run by American operators, many of those operators themselves have expressed concern about ambient gambling. A letter that I suspect many members of the Committee have received from one such casino operator says that the important point in any increase in problem gambling is the accessibility of machine gambling. It goes on to say: 
 ''A plethora of casino opportunities on every high street, as opposed to out-of-town regional sites, will give rise to impulse gambling in easy reach of passing shoppers. It will also''— 
this picks up on a point raised in an intervention on the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood— 
''displace the leisure spend from traditional town centre entertainment venues''. 
Therefore, there is clear concern about the issue of destination, and I hope that the Minister will tell us that the eight will meet the requirement of being destination casinos. 
 I also hope that the Minister will tell us—it is a pity that the issue is not before us now—that the locations chosen will meet the requirement that they are areas where there is clear evidence not only of the need for regeneration, but that regeneration will take place.

Tony Banks: I agree with a considerable amount of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he accept that London should qualify for a destination regional casino, given the number of tourists who visit the city? Clearly, it is a destination favoured by many people around the world.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and such a consideration could be taken into account, although the location within London would also have to be considered. I referred specifically to leisure destinaton casinos, not seaside resort casinos, so the hon. Gentleman's point is well made.

Iain Wright: Would the hon. Gentleman consider Bath as a centre for tourism?

Don Foster: It has become a habit for members of the Committee to pre-empt others' thinking, and the hon. Gentleman is doing so now. I shall no doubt have the opportunity later to tell the hon. Gentleman whether it would be beneficial for my constituency to have such a casino, but the straight answer to his question is that I have no doubt that Bath would fall within my understanding of the definition.

Richard Caborn: What does Mrs. Foster think?

Don Foster: Mrs. Foster and I disagree on a number of points—not least, I might say, the vote that the House is shortly to take on fox hunting, and possibly that on gambling, too.

Julie Kirkbride: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's answers to the questions that he has been asked. His delightful constituency of Bath and, for that matter, the delightful city of London already have a huge number of attractions, which bring many visitors to the United Kingdom for a tourism experience. Surely he thinks that it would be better to locate casinos where they would bring in regenerative benefits, as well as visitors.

Don Foster: The hon. Lady is jumping ahead, but I am grateful to her for doing so, because I was about to answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Iain Wright) about whether I thought it was a good idea to have a new super-casino in Bath. My clear answer is no. Part of the reason for that is that I do not think that it would meet the clear requirement of regeneration benefit. I genuinely do not believe that a large super-casino is right for my constituency. Having put that firmly on the record, I can say that the letters page of the Bath Chronicle is full of people telling me that I have got it wrong. There are now bound to be far more, but I like to share with the Committee my honest views on such matters.
 The final point that I should like to make is to welcome something that the Minister said in his relatively brief and relatively detail-free statement. One of the areas that would be covered by amendments being tabled to clause 7 is the proliferation of the other two categories of casino, the large and small, which might arise as a result of the limit of eight super-casinos. That has been overlooked in the Committee's deliberations so far, and I welcome the Government's intention to table amendments on that issue. 
 In summary, I wish that the Government listened more carefully and earlier. I hope that we shall see detail that will limit the location of the new casinos to destination casinos, that we shall have a clear assurance that they will only be in areas where there 
 will be clear regenerative benefit, and that we shall discuss and receive information about the tax regime. I welcome the fact that there will be proposals about the proliferation of non-regional casinos. 
 I end by drawing attention to the area about which we have heard nothing at all from the Minister, and which I touched on earlier: the category A machines. There is a clear concern, not only about the number of super-casinos, but about the introduction in this country for the first time of such highly addictive, unlimited prize machines. Concerns have been expressed by the current British casino operators about the unfairness of a regime that allows new super-casinos, but not large or small casinos, to have them, and there is a much wider concern about the impact that the introduction of those machines will have on increasing problem gambling, particularly on sites that allow ''walk in and play'' gambling. 
 I hope that we shall hear during the Minister's winding-up speech at least an indication about amendments to limit the percentage of category A machines allowed. We have a lot to hear from him, and look forward to hearing his response to this debate and to the detailed amendments that will be tabled. I hope above all that he will agree with the advice of the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire that we be given plenty of opportunity to discuss those amendments on Report.

Clive Efford: I very much welcome the announcement made this morning by my right hon. Friend the Minister. On the statement allegedly made last night by the Secretary of State, I should like to compliment her for managing to say something memorable at a parliamentary Labour party meeting. That is a rare event, and I am only sad that I was not there to witness it.
 I am absolutely delighted that the Government have listened. When I came to this Committee, I had already indicated that there were areas in which I was looking for change, and I was reassured that the Government were listening and that they were going to bring about those changes. We have seen evidence of that this morning. 
 After listening to comments made by Opposition Members, I think that they have dodged the issue. I hope that we shall hear from the Government how we shall determine where the casinos will go. If there are going to be eight, fine. If there are going to be four, fine. If there is to be just one, let us just decide on Blackpool and get on with it. I speak as a Member of Parliament for Greenwich, where there are rumours that someone wants to put a casino in the dome. Nobody has yet convinced me that we need a casino in my borough, but I am not here to argue any particular corner on that issue. 
 I am slightly disappointed that the programme motion did not ask us to consider clause 7 at a later date, as that would have given the Government the opportunity to table some amendments for the Committee to deal with. We are effectively debating invisible amendments in today's stand part debate. We 
 do not know how clause 7 will be amended, what will come out in the end, or how we will determine where the casinos go. 
 I listened to Opposition Members, and I asked both parties how they would determine where the casinos would go, to which they both gave the same answer: we are interested to hear what the Government will say about that. No doubt, they will then make speeches about how they know much better than the Government, and how the Government have got it wrong, but it would have been interesting if they had told us what direction we should take, and how we should determine where the clubs will go. 
 We have a problem. We have said that there will be eight casinos in the country, and we now need an open and transparent mechanism to decide where they will go. We cannot leave that to the marketplace. If we leave it to the planning process, it will come down to who purchases a site, who puts in a planning bid, who gets approval from their local planning authority, and who is in pole position to develop a major casino.

Julie Kirkbride: As a Back Bencher, I am able to give my own view, which might be taken up by our Front-Bench team. Would it not be a good idea to invite an auction among operators who wish to produce the casinos? We could ask them what the regenerative benefits would be in the location of their choice, and take the best of the bids.

Clive Efford: That is an interesting proposal, which the hon. Lady will no doubt have the opportunity to explore further in this debate or on the Floor of the House as we deal with the Bill. I would prefer that local authorities, with local communities, have the opportunity to examine the issue before we reach that stage. If a local authority receives a proposal—for example, if my local authority received one about the dome, or if the local authority of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) received one from West Ham United football club, which is interested in having a casino, or if Brent received one regarding the new Wembley development—it should examine that proposal in the context of its unitary development plan for the local area, and demonstrate that it is not just a speculative or opportunist bid for a casino, but would sit neatly with the local authority's stated intentions. There should be some history behind that in the UDP on record. The local authority should demonstrate that a casino would fit in the proposed area, and with local authority plans for the area and for the development of the local economy. It should show how the jobs created would benefit the local area, that there is some history of tourism and that tourism would play a role. Having done that, the local authority should then say to the local community, ''This is what we think is a good idea for our local area,'' and ask what they think of the case that has been put forward.
 The local authority should also consider proposals in relation to regional development, and ensure that they fit with the regional development plan. That may be an area for conflict, so some independent 
 arbitration would be required to ensure that there is an independent overview. Perhaps a recommendation could then be made to the Secretary of State, so that he or she could determine whether the proposal is a legitimate bid for an area to be designated suitable for the development of a casino.

John Pugh: I largely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but are we not trapped somewhat by the magic of numbers? We might have a number of propositions that the market will stand, where there are significant regeneration benefits, the public have been consulted adequately and planning consent has been given. The number might be more than the eight specified, however, and if so the Government will have to find an arbitrary criterion to reduce it to that figure.

Clive Efford: The hon. Gentleman is right. The figure of eight might prove insufficient. I sincerely hope that it does, because, as the Committee may have gathered from what I have said, on the whole I am not too happy about the Bill. I do not gamble, but I accept that other people will do so and that we need to legislate to ensure that local communities and our economy and not the private operators who intend to run casinos get the maximum benefit from them.
 I fear that the hon. Gentleman may be right, and that eight is not a sufficient number. We must therefore make a decision about where casinos should and should not be located. The Government may be able to get themselves out of that hole by setting very high standards that must be satisfied in order to ensure that, when determining a decision, the maximum benefits and not just huge sums of money or planning gain are brought to the area seeking to develop a casino. 
 The decision should sit neatly with a carefully thought out local and regional development plan, and there should be clear benefits to the local community when determining a suitable place for a casino. That would prevent the proliferation of casinos on our high streets or in local areas to which many people have referred, and developments should clearly be destination casinos. The big casinos with category A machines must be located in places to which people make a conscious decision to go to have a bit of fun playing them. Those machines should not slip into bingo halls in town centres. I do not think that the Bill provides for that, but we do not want the proliferation of casinos as described in places such as Australia—pokies, where people pop in on their way home from work or after the pub and perhaps over-indulge in gambling. We must designate sites as specific places that people make a conscious decision to visit. 
 During later discussions, we should consider membership as part of the stipulations that we place on casinos. I accept that if they are to be places that people visit on their holidays, we may need to drop the 24-hour cooling-off period, but the identity of people going to casinos must be known and checked.

Don Foster: I entirely support the hon. Gentleman. Is he aware that, under the second EU directive on money laundering, identification on entry will be
 required, and that, judging from the draft third directive, there is clearly no likelihood of that changing?

Clive Efford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was not aware of that requirement, but I support it. Identification is important, particularly when large stakes are involved. It will also help to deal with money laundering to some degree.
 We must set high standards throughout the Bill. When dealing with legislation on an issue such as gambling, the lowest common denominator should cause us most concern. We should think about the people who will adopt the sharpest practices, about those who will encourage people to drink and over-indulge in gambling, and about those who will treat their work forces in a way that we would not want any employer to treat their employees. Those people are present in the gambling industry and we have to legislate for that. That is why the clause is so important. 
 I await with interest the final proposals from the Government, because in determining where the eight casinos are located they will need to remove their responsibility for making Hobson's choice about which region should have one. There has to be some mechanism, and some logic, for deciding where those casinos go, and the Government have a duty, having placed a limit on the numbers, to come up with that mechanism.

Richard Page: This is almost surreal; in all my 28 years in this place I have never debated a clause that does not exist. As the clause is the cornerstone of the Bill, but is not in front of us, we have a virtually blank sheet of paper.

Richard Caborn: Trust me.

Richard Page: That is what worries me.
 The only fact we have is the magic figure of eight. The Minister puts a brave face on it, but he has my sympathy. He has been dropped right in it, so I will not be too rude about him. He has to carry this measure through and he will have the scars on his back until the day he leaves the House. It is, however, very interesting. 
 The hon. Member for Bath has left the Room, which is a great pity, but that will spare me from talking about the dangers or otherwise of category A machines, which I do not think carry such an amount of danger. A machine with a smaller limit of a mere £2,000 or £3,000 can be equally as addictive as one that may pay out £1 million, because even the slowest-witted person will realise that he stands less chance of winning £1 million than a couple of thousand pounds. Such matters will be monitored by the gambling commission, which will come up with the appropriate recommendations. I am, however, in favour of considerably raising the limits of those machines in the smaller casinos. 
 I recommend that, as the Government have got themselves into such a pickle, they can only look and learn from the scrutiny Committee. If they had just taken the Committee's guidance, we would not be 
 where we are today—we would be much further on. I refer the Minister to the Committee's report, in which we said: 
 ''We strongly urge the Government to rethink its policy in this area [planning for regional/leisure destination casinos] and to pay proper regard to the evidence given to this Committee about how best to secure the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's policy objectives for casino developments which this Committee supports.'' 
The Government response states: 
''we have made it clear'', 
in securing regeneration benefits, that 
''it is for Regional Planning Bodies . . . where they consider it appropriate, to identify suitable locations within the region that would optimise their contribution to tourism and regeneration.'' 
The response then details the regions that have commissioned research 
''to assess the likely demand for casinos in the region.'' 
I will not repeat the scrutiny Committee's advice that the Government were reluctant to publish national guidance relating specifically to regional and leisure destination casinos, because we all know that although the Government said that the 
''joint statements already provide a comprehensive policy framework'', 
that is not so. 
 Can the Minister tell us how the eight casinos have emerged? Which regional planning bodies have submitted their applications for casinos and how have the Government selected those that will go forward and those that have been rejected? He mentioned that he has been in talks with Scotland and Wales, so presumably, included in this eight, there will be an allocation for Scotland and Wales. How has he decided which of the eight will go to Scotland and Wales? Does he actually have any authority over determining those numbers? 
 I wonder whether the Minister will look me straight in the eye and say that the figure has been plucked out of the air to satisfy political expediency. Is this the wetted finger approach? Is he saying, ''I think they'll swallow eight, let's have a go at eight'', or has the figure been properly calculated through regional bodies? Has the figure been properly calculated as was said in reply to the scrutiny Committee's statement urging the Government to have proper cognisance of redevelopment advantages and benefits?

Clive Efford: The hon. Gentleman is pressing the Government hard on the figure of eight. I am sure that his hon. Friend, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) will be warning him of my question . How did the Conservatives arrive at the figure of four?

Richard Page: Although I am not on the Front Bench—

Tony Banks: It is only a matter of time.

Richard Page: I understand that the arts portfolio is free at the moment, but I would not pass the physical.
 We would do exactly as the Government have said. We would use recommendations from regional planning bodies, because they know their areas best, and ascertain which would produce the most regeneration benefits. We may have the difficult task of deciding between Bath and Blackpool, but that is how it goes. We would come forward with the four that we had chosen. It is a simple process; I do not know why the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) is trying to make such a complicated mystery out of it. We would evaluate the various claims. I asked the Minister how he has evaluated the various claims, but we will have to wait to see whether he will give an answer.

Joan Humble: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, although there has been a lot of speculation about 100-plus proposals, the only figure that I have seen is of 34 definite proposals. In two regions, no regional casino proposals have been submitted, yet eight have been submitted in the north-west, and five in London. Is he suggesting that the choice should be left to the regions? If so, how will he determine where to place a casino in a region in which there has been no expression of interest, and how will he deal with regions, such as mine and Greater London, that have far greater interest?

Richard Page: This will come as a shattering surprise to the hon. Lady, but the Conservatives are not in government at the moment—that is for the near future. We are discussing what the Government will do with the Gambling Bill. I was trying to help the hon. Member for Eltham, who found it difficult to grasp that we may want to evaluate competing bids from regions. I would not want a casino—destination or otherwise—to be imposed on a region that did not want it. I am simply asking, given the proposals that operators have undoubtedly thought about and worked on, what process the Minister has employed in order to arrive at the magic figure of eight.
 When we took evidence on the scrutiny Committee, various Ministers made it crystal clear that they did not want any appeals to go to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, that they wanted to be out of the process, and that the Deputy Prime Minister did not want to decide between applications. However, we suddenly seem to have a process of selection. In an open and honest way, I am trying to find out how we got to the figure of eight.

Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman has just had a go at my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham, yet the Front-Bench team for the official Opposition have not said how they came to their conclusion on the number, and so we are deeply grateful to him at least for elucidating that. He underestimates his significance as well as his physical prowess. What he has said is probably just how the Government would do it, too. The Minister is no doubt feverishly taking notes.

Richard Page: I thank the hon. Gentleman for again advancing a free-market approach, with which I can only concur. I sincerely hope that the Minister will reply in line with what he suggests.
 The reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford did not go into intricate detail was, purely and simply, that he was under the impression that hon. Members would understand that that was an obvious way of going ahead. The fact that hon. Members were unable to grasp that just goes to show that one should never overestimate the Government. 
 I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bath was not here when I touched on category A machines, because I know that the subject is dear to his heart. He mentioned the legs of the stool and the tax aspect. That is exceedingly important, because no organisation will go ahead with a vast investment of perhaps hundreds of millions of pounds without knowing the tax implications. Perhaps the Minister could take this message back: the Chancellor will make a spending review announcement fairly shortly, and it would be helpful if some guidance for the casino operators came forward in that review.

Tony Banks: I am very much a Government loyalist, and I regularly admire the sun rising from the nether regions of the Prime Minister, but I must say that I am not at all happy with what I am hearing—or not hearing—from the Minister on the clause. I have been on many Standing Committees in my 20-odd years in this place, and this is quite the oddest. That has nothing to do with your excellent chairmanship, Mr. Gale, or indeed my contribution; the fact is that it is normal for Committees to consider the fine details of a Bill before Report. That is what the Committee stage is all about. I fully understand what has been said, and it is good to know that a recommendation will be made to the Committee of Ways and Means, so that we will have adequate time on Report to debate clause 7 and the amendments that the Minister might table, but that is not the same as Committee. It is different, as we all know, and we are not being given the opportunities. As we have become immersed in the Bill, we should really be discussing, in fine detail, Government proposals on the clause.

Nick Hawkins: I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that it would be enormously helpful if the Minister brought forward the details of the replacement clause 7 while the
 Committee was still sitting? No doubt, the Programming Sub-Committee could meet again and we could go back to the clause and do exactly what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Tony Banks: Absolutely. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham that the provision should perhaps have come later in our deliberations, but I do not think that that is possible now. Once we have begun to debate whether a clause stands part of the Bill, that is it.

Nick Hawkins: It is procedurally possible for the Government to bring forward a replacement new clause.

Tony Banks: That would be a matter for discussion. I can see that discussions have already started as to whether that if feasible. This is a strange way of considering a Bill; that is one thing on which we should all agree. Our only opportunity is that, when the Minister comes to wind up the debate, he will give as much detail as he can—assuming that he has details to give us. So many questions are immediately raised when we say that there will be a number. I believe that it is eight, but we cannot be 100 per cent. certain.
 A number of my colleagues have agreed that there should be a cap, but I do not believe that there should be; that is what Government said originally, and what we should have stuck to. Already, bids are coming in even from Committee members, who are saying, ''I would like a casino in my area.'' We certainly want one in West Ham, and I hope to expand later on why, and how far we are down that road.

Roger Gale: I have taken preliminary advice on the point of order that was tacitly, if not overtly, raised. My understanding is that the only manner in which the concerns of the hon. Member for West Ham could properly be met within order would be for the Committee to negative clause 7, and for a wholly new clause to be tabled. Once the clause has been voted on, it becomes clause 7 of the Bill.
 It being twenty-five past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.